Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 0:35:09 GMT -5
Can you imagine a firefighter declaring himself a conscientious objector because he refuses to cut down tree branches? Organic Law of March 3, on sexual and reproductive health and voluntary interruption of pregnancy, better known as the Abortion Law, tells us that “Access to voluntary interruption of pregnancy is guaranteed under the conditions that are determined in this Law. These conditions will be interpreted in the most favorable way for the protection and effectiveness of the fundamental rights of the woman who requests the intervention, in particular, her right to the free development of personality, to life, to physical and moral integrity, privacy, ideological freedom and non-discrimination", while warning that "Health professionals directly involved in the voluntary interruption of pregnancy will have the right to exercise conscientious objection without access to and the quality of care provided may be undermined by the exercise of conscientious objection.” So that we understand each other, and making a simile that directly affects us, it is like "All citizens are equal before the law", but if you defraud the Treasury and by the grace of God you are inviolable, you cannot be judged. Well known from all the practices of judges when it comes to doing politics with a toga and not.
Through the use of a majority obtained at the polls, the “we will control the second room through the back door” does not refer to the parking service door precisely. How to do politics with a white coat? As simple as becoming a conscientious objector and refusing to practice abortions or euthanasia, two practices, which you may or may not agree with, but they are Australia Phone Number legitimized by political representatives, with a majority in what they call the house of democracy. Of course, if in the same law that you announce with great fanfare to please “yours”, you leave loose fringes so that “others” can act as they please, the law remains a dead end, leaving those affected in total vulnerability, those women who have enough to make the difficult decision to abort, or those people who, I imagine after meditating much longer than I suspect, decide to end their lives. Timorous laws that give way to women without resources not being able to opt for that desired abortion, for whatever reason, it is their body and their decision, or to people, who seeing that when they resort to hospital centers in which all of the “professionals” are conscientious objectors, their last resort is suicide.
Do these laws guarantee a minimum number of non-objecting personnel in each center? No, the law in the case of abortion says that, “If exceptionally the public health service could not facilitate the provision in time, the health authorities will recognize the pregnant woman's right to go to any accredited center in the national territory, with the written commitment to directly assume the payment of the benefit.” This does not mean that if you come across the “chance” that all the professionals in the center are objectors, they will provide you with a “gift voucher” to go wherever you want, in any case it is rather that you find your life and then complain , something that for a woman without economic resources we could say that almost forces her in the end to give up on abortion, or what is worse, to carry out some practice that is not recommended, health-wise. A person who receives a public salary is due to their public position/employment, and their religious beliefs, which must be respected at all times, but in their private life, they cannot restrict in any way the rights of others, and that What they can do is not the fault of the former, which for me, morally, is not acceptable, a part of those laws, I insist on being timorous, gives them the approval to do so. Who are the culprits of this situation? Those who write laws by saying mass and ringing.
Through the use of a majority obtained at the polls, the “we will control the second room through the back door” does not refer to the parking service door precisely. How to do politics with a white coat? As simple as becoming a conscientious objector and refusing to practice abortions or euthanasia, two practices, which you may or may not agree with, but they are Australia Phone Number legitimized by political representatives, with a majority in what they call the house of democracy. Of course, if in the same law that you announce with great fanfare to please “yours”, you leave loose fringes so that “others” can act as they please, the law remains a dead end, leaving those affected in total vulnerability, those women who have enough to make the difficult decision to abort, or those people who, I imagine after meditating much longer than I suspect, decide to end their lives. Timorous laws that give way to women without resources not being able to opt for that desired abortion, for whatever reason, it is their body and their decision, or to people, who seeing that when they resort to hospital centers in which all of the “professionals” are conscientious objectors, their last resort is suicide.
Do these laws guarantee a minimum number of non-objecting personnel in each center? No, the law in the case of abortion says that, “If exceptionally the public health service could not facilitate the provision in time, the health authorities will recognize the pregnant woman's right to go to any accredited center in the national territory, with the written commitment to directly assume the payment of the benefit.” This does not mean that if you come across the “chance” that all the professionals in the center are objectors, they will provide you with a “gift voucher” to go wherever you want, in any case it is rather that you find your life and then complain , something that for a woman without economic resources we could say that almost forces her in the end to give up on abortion, or what is worse, to carry out some practice that is not recommended, health-wise. A person who receives a public salary is due to their public position/employment, and their religious beliefs, which must be respected at all times, but in their private life, they cannot restrict in any way the rights of others, and that What they can do is not the fault of the former, which for me, morally, is not acceptable, a part of those laws, I insist on being timorous, gives them the approval to do so. Who are the culprits of this situation? Those who write laws by saying mass and ringing.